IN THE ongoing wrangle over genetically modified food, sifting fact from
propaganda can be difficult. John Krebs, chairman of Britain鈥檚 Food Standards
Agency, suggests that the country should have an independent scientific panel to do the job
(快猫短视频, 5 August, p 49). His suggestion prompted me
to ask agriculture minister Baroness Hayman if she considered the idea to be a
starter.
Hayman, whose numerous responsibilities at the Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food include GM issues, agreed that a more informed and balanced
debate is needed on this issue. She added that the government is trying to
promote such a debate because although there is much public concern about this
new technology, it has much to offer鈥攏ot just to farmers and the food
industry, but also to society at large. 鈥淕iven the developing nature of the
technology we believe that people should try to keep an open mind and look at
the issues calmly and rationally,鈥� she said.
She added that the government has promoted the idea of an international
scientific panel on genetic modification issues, most recently at the G8 summit
in Okinawa in July. 鈥淎lthough it was not possible to reach agreement there, we
are continuing to explore further along these lines with our international
partners. Our aim is for an independent, science-based, open and inclusive
consideration of GM crop and food issues.鈥�
Advertisement
Closer to home, the government has taken steps to improve its own GM advisory
framework. Britain now has a Human Genetics Commission and an Agriculture and
Environment Biotechnology Commission, both of which should contribute to the
public debate in this area and help to improve general awareness and
understanding of the issues involved, Hayman said.
I am sure Krebs is right. It is good that the government is giving him its
backing.
FROG folly seems to have invaded Australia. Amateur conservationists there,
concerned at the plight of the amphibians, may be making things worse by moving
them to unfamiliar ponds and streams and so spreading disease
(快猫短视频, 2 September, p 14).
Having long been fascinated by these
creatures, and having spoken up for them at the committee stage of the 1981
Wildlife and Countryside Bill, I wondered if we in Britain are doing any better
than the Australians. Not knowing who the minister for frogs is, I asked Chris
Mullin, junior minister with responsibility for water and coastal policy at the
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Mullin sought the advice of English Nature, who said that so far the chytrid
fungus, which some scientists claim is responsible for the world decline in frog
numbers, has not been found in the wild in Europe. The Wildlife and Countryside
Act, he reminded me, gives statutory protection to endangered wild species and
their habitats. The Herpetofauna Groups, which were set up by English Nature,
have now issued general guidelines aiming to reduce the transfer of frogspawn,
and associated pathogens, from one environment to another. It is an offence
under the 1981 act to release non-native frogs into the wild.
A problem now in Britain, the minister added, is the amphibian disease
iridovirus. It has killed off substantial numbers of frogs in some areas of
south-east England. However, the frog population often seems to recover, so we
don鈥檛 yet know if iridovirus is a major conservation issue, Mullin said.
